I get email, gay marriage edition

The silly it-is-to-laugh news: the religious right is indignant. I got this email this afternoon:

I have been reading your blog entries regarding The Minnesota Legislature’s legalizing of gay marriage. In these entries, you seem to put the blame for the hold up on the passing of this legislation on Christians and organized religion, who oppose gay marriage as a tenet of their faith. That is fine on your part and does not bother me one iota. What I would like to do is to send you 77 NON-RELIGIOUS Reasons to Support Man/Woman Marriage. If you are open minded enough and don’t mind sending me your “snail mail” address, I will send you a copy of this pamphlet for your information. Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely Yours,

David W. Zeile

I told him to go ahead, but I took a wild guess at what these ‘reasons’ would be — I predict lots of repetition of the same few arguments with a few words twisted around, and much circling around the purpose of marriage being procreation and children needing a mommy and a daddy and how it’s so unfair for the law to force people to tolerate wicked gays. I figured I’d have fun ripping into it.

Comments

We won, PZ! We won! Did you hear the debate in the senate yesterday? Half of it was mindfuckingly painful to listen to. We got lied to last November… We’re not bigots, we just stand up for our bigoted beliefs…. yeesh.

In these entries, you seem to put the blame for the hold up on the passing of this legislation on Christians and organized religion, who oppose gay marriage as a tenet of their faith.

The hater didn’t get anything right.

It isn’t xians and organized religion. It is Oogedy Boogedy fundie death cult xians. In point of fact, Minnesota has a large majority of xians, the state legislature is probably 100% religious almost all xians, and they passed the marriage equality bill anyway.

Opposing gay marriage is a tenet of their faith? Since when. I don’t remember hearing anything about it in the last 3,000 years.

And why should I or we or anyone care one rat’s ass what the tenets of his ugly death cult faith are? It’s his problem and no one elses.

According to Wikipedia, Dr Jennifer Roback Morse (Ph.D., economics) has an adopted son from Romania.
Just 4 points in and we have this:

2 Man/woman marriage allows children to know and be known by their biological parents. Same sex marriage separates children from at least one parent.
4 Man/woman marriage provides children with access to their genetic, cultural and social heritage.

Uhmm. By her own logic, her adopted son has been “deprived.” While it may be the case that the boy was already irrevocably separated from both of this biological parents and his “genetic heritage”, taking him (presumably without his consent, given he was 2) from his cultural and social heritage was something she did by choice. Maybe in the long run it was “best” for the boy – maybe not.

Jebus, what’s with the scattershot approach of 77 fucking reasons? Why not go the full 95 to match Luther? Did it simply not occur to them that at best most of it’s irrelevant garbage, considering that they only needed one?

My guess is that these reasons have to do with biology and society. Someone claimed that homosexuals are more likely to develop mental illness (no citation given). If such a thing were true, I’d blame it on how they are being treated by holier than thou christians.

Like most Gish Gallop lists, there aren’t really 77 reasons given here. Many are vague re-wordings of the same point (mostly “children need both fathers and mothers” repeated ad nauseam) and some don’t really fall into the category of “reason” at all – even by a broad definition – but are merely whining statements of supposed fact…The remaining points in the list not falling into “repeat” or “whining” can be categorised as “irrelevant”, and so the lack of more specific detail to back up these assertions cannot be excused. This seems to be an exercise in reaching a magical number, 77, rather than building convincing arguments. If it was about simple brevity, only a dozen points at most would be needed, if it was about providing a consistent argument there would be more coherent prose rather than bullet points.

They should be careful what they ask for. If we screened marriage partners and parents for mental illness, social problems, intelligence, education, and malevolence….then we would have to sterilize most fundie xians.

I found the ultimate point that is the crux of all of the failure in those “77” “arguments”:

This looks at marriage from the adult point of view. It reveals just how deeply same sex marriage inverts the purpose of marriage.
Look at marriage from the child’s point of view. Not every marriage produces children. But every child has parents.
Every child is entitled to a relationship with both parents.

Marriage, even marriages where children are not involved, are all about children. You are evil and backwards and wrong to think a marriage is about the married couple primarily. Fuck adoption, fuck single parents, fuck unmarried couples with children, fuck married couples without children. If you aren’t a heterosexual nuclear family, marriage isn’t about you. Because THINK OF THE CHILDREN.
Yeah. Homophobes are universally clueless dolts.

Bonus points: The quoted portion is 3 “arguments”. The next 3 “arguments” are also basically repetitions of that same idea.

There are also: 8 “arguments” shitting on stepparents, 3 “arguments” trying to spin the acknowledged fact that studies actually show that same-sex parents aren’t worse than non-same-sex parents, 5 “arguments” about how genders are totally different u gaiz, 4 more salivating over how great and important fathers are, and 5 more that sounds suspiciously like “what about teh menz?”. There’s 8 “arguments” against “artificial reproduction” and then 9 about Redefining Marriage and other such serious business, and 8 more about “how dare gubmint seize the power to redefine marriage”.

This thing is fucking absurd. Inanities all around. A wingnut without religion is still as craven, dishonest, and slobbering of an ogre as the theocrats. A bigot without religion is still just as spiteful, irrational, and indifferent to facts as a Bible-beating bigot. Perhaps Zeile needs to realize this first before he can be stripped of the temptation to forward utter, malicious, disingenuous tripe like this impressively long list of 77 sentences.

Shorter 77 reasons: “Butbutbut, WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!!?!?!?111!ELEBENTY!”

Washington state legalized marriage equality in November (the first same-sex marriages began in December). Here are the “consequences” (as I have observed them):

The state is not bankrupt.
Opposite-sex marriages were not eliminated; previously married couples were not forced to divorce.
No one has been forced into a same-sex marriage by the state, nor have same-sex spouses been assigned to, well, anyone (Governor Inslee, if you’re planning on doing this, let us know. I’ll have a long wait–my last name starts with W).
No children have been ripped from their opposite-sex parents and forced to adopted by same-sex couples.
The state has not been destroyed by an earthquake/volcano/Jeebus smiting/atomic bomb.
Basically, all is quiet on the Western front (geddit? heh heh heh).

These windbags annoy me–*really* people, is the world *only* going to end if *your state* gets marriage equality? All those other states don’t exist/were trial runs/who knows what? If it’s the country gaining marriage equality that you’re worried about, wouldn’t the world have ended when Canada did it? How about Argentina? Spain? How about the rest of these countries? *Crickets*

And those who want to get married but NOT have and raise children should be exempt from nearly all of the “77 reasons,” I would expect. I married my late wife knowing we would not (and could not) have children. If he wants to tell me my marriage was invalid for that reason, I invite him to do so while I’m pounding him into the ground.*

A wingnut without religion is still as craven, dishonest, and slobbering of an ogre as the theocrats. A bigot without religion is still just as spiteful, irrational, and indifferent to facts as a Bible-beating bigot. Perhaps Zeile needs to realize this first before he can be stripped of the temptation to forward utter, malicious, disingenuous tripe like this impressively long list of 77 sentences.

I accept this, but I don’t think we can conclude that Morse is non-religious.* It’s just that these are (ostensibly) “secular” arguments, because they don’t have explicitly religious nonsense splattered all over them. This isn’t because they have secular interests in mind or have no religious motivations or aren’t religious people/organizations, but because they want to avoid confrontation with the establishment clause.

*That might apply to Zeile too, but I gather that Morse is the author, or at least is claiming authorship of a compilation of many others’ work, maybe from NOM or other such “think tanks.” Instead of Shakespeare, this is generally what happens when you put a thousand monkeys in front of typewriters.

Well, at least they seem to have realized that their religious ‘reasons’ suck. As for their non-religious ‘reasons’ (the few and far between assertions that make distinctions between the actual sex/gender of the spouses at all) all I can say is “citation fucking needed”.

@Wowbagger

This one at least knows it’s ‘tenets’ not ‘tenants’, which is something.

Marriage ceremonies can be, and for many people are, performed by religious representatives in houses of religion, but ALL legally recognized marriages are CIVIL. Your marriage license comes from the state, not the church.

Marriage is about creating legal kinship between two people. It is a commitment that two people make to each other and it is a relationship that is legally recognized and given special status and benefits. Children have rights to their parents’ care and resources completely independent of their parents’ marital status. If the real worry is that children are going to be denied the parental care they’re entitled to, then a married same-sex couple who conceives and births a child together using a surrogate or donated genetic material should both be recognized as the child’s parents without the non-biologically-related parent having to adopt. This would ensure that the parents who intentionally created the baby are both legally responsible for their child.

In reality, this takes the form of “every parent is entitled to own their children”, which causes more fucking problems. This is the reason why I lived with my abusive rapist father for 14 years. This is why I can’t legally protect my child from her drug addict abusive sperm donor.

Every child should grow up in a happy, loving, stable home – which comes in many different from this nuclear family shit – and opening adoption and other options to gay/lesbian couples helps the children. Being able to get legally married is but one step to make this an option for most gay couples who want to adopt since most places require the couple to be married. Now, we need to outlaw discrimination of gay couples and make marriage available across the country.

Washington state legalized marriage equality in November (the first same-sex marriages began in December). Here are the “consequences” (as I have observed them):

I’ve been enjoying (and by that I mean not enjoying) the pearl clutching and hand wringing over the idea that business owners cannot discriminate against gay people (eg- Arlene’s Flowers Vs. WA State). She refused to do a long time customers wedding to his partner because of “her personal relationship with jesus christ”. Because, you know, jesus hates weddings and gay people. Anywho, queue to the state Attorney General’s office suing her, for violation of consumer protection law. Because you can’t do that. People are seriously in a dither about this. I find it interesting, because before the election, this was a frequent argument seen in letters to the editor around the state “xtians won’t be allowed to not service gay weddings! cake makers will have to make gay cakes! gay dresses! gay balloons! ahhhhh!!!!”. And low and behold, they were right and they can’t and goddamn if that doesn’t make me feel good.

I accept this, but I don’t think we can conclude that Morse is non-religious.* It’s just that these are (ostensibly) “secular” arguments, because they don’t have explicitly religious nonsense splattered all over them. This isn’t because they have secular interests in mind or have no religious motivations or aren’t religious people/organizations, but because they want to avoid confrontation with the establishment clause.

And I accept this. Probably missed a step in logic there to make for a more interesting rant to conclude with. Whoops. It’s why I’m neither a logician, nor a writer, I suppose.

Traditional marriage is of course needed to show the child what an authoritarian, bigoted father looks like and what a craven subservient mother looks like. Otherwise the child might not know its place in the hierarchy, or of course, the pain that is religious love. That would be baaad.
And of course I have no idea what to do with a child that loses one or more parents before the age of indoctrination, maybe the church has some guidance. Is bbq sauce involved?

And of course I have no idea what to do with a child that loses one or more parents before the age of indoctrination, maybe the church has some guidance. Is bbq sauce involved?

It has nothing to do with the wedding; that is the responsibility of the godparents appointed at the child’s baptism.

Though I am sure that bbq sauce would improve the situation.

Thing is, in the USA for the last few decades people have generally not been dropping off like flies from wars and disease, so these people regard children who have lost one or more parents permanently as rarities not worth thinking about. Communities have forgotten their history. They now think that the ‘fifties propaganda of a working father, stay-at-home mother and 2.4 happy smiling children is the only template for families, instead of just one way (and far from the best or even most common way, at that) of humans to get together.

Easiest solution to this problem would have been to revoke state powers from holy men and let all these God-botherers get their precious religious marriages and have the government ignore them all. If they want contractual property law marriage, they can go to a civil authority and get it.

Just another instance of how damaging their privileged position in society is. They’ve confused everyone on what actual English words mean.

No wait. What I like better is after all the fear mongers complaints that gays will destroy marriage, “allies” like Vincent propose, as a solution, that we eliminate the thing entirely. Thanks but no thanks for your help dude. Can’t wait until all the opposite sex non-believers get pissed at gays for ruining it for them.

I’m sure I’m in for some sort of straightsplaining about how I’m overly emotional and overreacting. I’m fucking sick of listening to straight people, of all stripes, debating me at this point. Just make it stop already. I don’t fucking need a new solutions from Vincent when it is pretty clear that marriage equality is the route that we are going with the weight of history and existing laws and structures. Why the need to protest marriage equality when it is coming? Why? Just because? So sick of contrarian concern trolling by people with no skin in the game.

And by the way, if marriage is religious, are non-believers defrauding the government by acting as though their civil marriages are actual marriages? I can’t believe we have been debating this issue for two decades since Hawaii and still people haven’t thought through their arguments. Ridiculous and pathetic.

These “arguments” are reminiscent of intelligent design creationism. It’s fancy dressed up biblical literalism. Be at least honest – stick to Leviticus and Romans, and don’t pretend to have an argument.

Cheeses! I stop even getting laughs out of the valiant efforts of the wiki crew by only #25! Like the Bible itself, there is NO WAY the ‘Mer’kin teabaggers, wingnuts and Xians have read further than the first three, if those!

PhD? She writes like a so-so Junior High School student who entered public school last year after extensive homeskoolin’!

If anyone finds some (deeply) buried gems of diamond tard, would they clip ’em for those of us unable to dive as deeply into this fetid, stupid bigot’s latrine?

If one can have secular and religious weddings, does that lead to secular and religious marriages? And more importantly does that lead to secular and religious sex? Yes, according to catholics it does: religious sex is missionary position, lovey-dovey, no oral-to-orgasm, fingering-to-orgasm, no anal at all, no condoms, no birth-control, oh and you should pray before or after, especially asking for a new baby from Jebus.

In other words “religious sex”, just like “religious anything” just means making up some arbitrary rules based on some stuff you read in a book. Religious marriage is exactly just that – the same as the secular variety but with some self-imposed rules. And that’s why same-sex-marriage shouldn’t be influenced by other people’s views: religious or secular, you only get to self-impose, not tell other people what to do, how to marry (have weddings, families, sex, whatever).

Wow. She reads like someone who, in high school, was in the debate club that was run by a disinterested untrained track coach in the off season and who thinks her success there means she knows how to make a good argument.

I tweaked [the response to] 49 by turning her argument on straight parents. Looks like at least a couple of the Horde might have been active over there as well, since there’s an uptick in edits today.

@Carlie:
It is decidedly not the writing of a participant in a PhD program [by which I mean someone *participating* in a PhD program, not merely someone in such a program but currently writing a facebook status update]. However, it is the writing of someone who can count to 77, so that’s something.

Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaidensays

I don’t fucking need a new solutions from Vincent when it is pretty clear that marriage equality is the route that we are going with the weight of history and existing laws and structures. Why the need to protest marriage equality when it is coming? Why? Just because? – barbyau

Usually, the “reason” is libertarianism. Although vincentd doesn’t make it explicit, this:

That said, till (optimistic, aren’t I) government realizes all it should be doing is civil unions and contract law

If they are arguing that only heterosexuals naturally produce children, so marriage is a special case for them, no doubt they can point to the parts on various marriage licenses, or in states marriage vows where the couple swear that they intent to have children. Or the benefits of marriage that only apply to couples who have had children

May we all live long enough to see the day when the right-wing religious conservatives embrace gay marriage, say they were always in support of it, and blame opposition to it on left-wing liberal atheists. My guess is that it’ll take 50 years, max.

I really think there is only one rational reason to oppose Gay Marriage..
Marriage is a religious institution… Government shouldn’t be involved in it at all..

That said, till (optimistic, aren’t I) government realizes all it should be doing is civil unions and contract law, it should withhold NO rights or privileges from individuals.

Marriage is nothing more than a public ceremony. The government is involved in a standard contract, and is not involved in any further meaning of the ceremony. In reality, all you need is a few signatures. The ceremony itself is just for show.

The conflation between “marriage” and any other form of officially sanctioned domestic contracts (say, civil unions) is a diversionary tactic used mainly by the religious to provide cover for their bigotry. That’s pretty much it.

I hope the Christians are right, and marriage equality helps erode the erroneous association of religion and marriage. It’s high time religious leaders aren’t the only ones automatically given the power of government representatives in the capacity of marriage officiate. Because the resistance to marriage equality has been damned near exclusively religious in nature, I have hopes their opposition helps erode the role of religion in marriage.

Thing is, if you set it up so that any particular marriage is between consenting adults then it simplifies so much. You don’t have to worry about what gender, sexuality or that the people are. Just two important questions, are they adults? do they consent? (OK, probably a good idea to keep the incest restrictions in there, from a genetics point of view partly if the parties are able to procreate together and wish to, and partly because mixing family dynamics with romantic relationships can have issues.)
Anything else, not relevant. It also has the extra advantage of being of benefit to intersex and trans people and others of ambiguous sex and/or gender.

In my anthropology classes, a number of years ago, to be sure, I was told that marriage creates a web of obligation between two families, to the betterment of both. The fact that this provides more support for kids is secondary to providing more support for the adults involved. Increased cooperation leads to increased survival.

Which is why marriage, in one form or another, is one of the few universals across all the different human cultures.

Or at least that is what those people who study people and culture had to say about it.

As a parent of an adopted child, I’d like to give a big Fuck You to whoever wrote that list. All that crap about children needing to be with their biological parents, and then in reasons 68 and 69 seeming to imply that adoptions aren’t as good as keeping biological parents and children together and should only be permitted because of necessity. There is nothing substandard about my family. And of course, there would be nothing substandard about a family just because of the gender combination of the parents.

Also, if you read on far enough, she mentions the real reason at least twice: when gay marriage is allowed, the women will all marry each other and raise the kids together, because men are mumble-too-stupid-to-help-or-something-mumble, and then the poor men wouldn’t have any access to their children and the poor children wouldn’t have any access to their fathers! She has no idea how deeply she’s steeped in patriarchal prejudices.

It’s high time religious leaders aren’t the only ones automatically given the power of government representatives in the capacity of marriage officiate.

Y’know, where I come from, religious leaders are never given the power of government representatives. Only actual civil servants have that power. To marry, you have to go to an office. Marriage is a bureaucratic act.

Most people then have a religious ceremony in a church the next day; at least the Catholic Church only does this with people who are already legally married, and the state does not recognize any religious ceremony as a marriage.

“19 Adopted and foster children tell us that they long for relationship with their biological parents. ”

and there are many children raised by their biological parents who wish they were not. not really a good argument against allowing same sex couples from having legally recognized marriages. lets also not forget how same sex couples are still getting married to each other which are not legally recognized, and raising children in their marriages
. then there is the reality of the united states clearly moving to a future where marriage for same sex couples will be legally recognized in every state of the nation, no matter how many lame “arguments” opponents can try to come up with. they have clearly lost the culture on this issue.

I have learned from reading that list that the best way to get respect is to insist that everyone refers to me as Dr Hill Ph.D. at all times. Not just in writing, but when they address me personally. I’m sure my wife will come round to the idea eventually.

However, it is the writing of someone who can count to 77, so that’s something.

Well, Word and PPT can authomatically number any list for you
.
So, marriage is a contract between 2 individuals that get some protection from the government (duh, as any contract) and some benefits because… because… why do they have tax benefits?

Checking on the map, some states’ citizens and politicians might reassess the bans on gay marriage that had been put into their state constitutions several years ago. So instead of litigation, we might see efforts to repeal those amendments.

The Supreme Court still hasn’t made a decision about the gay-marriage cases before it, but I think that the worst case is likely that it’ll leave it up to the states.

So I expect a patchwork of “blue states” recognizing gay marriage and “red states” rejecting it.